Talk:The Twilight Saga (film series)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Guy546^(Talk) 22:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. (Note: This is my first GA review so please be patient with me.)

Disambiguations: I found 3 disambigs and 1 that redirects back to the page.

I fixed the disambiguations. Once filming begins on the last movie, that redirect will become its own article. Is it fine to leave it since it is temporary? Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Guy546^(Talk) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: I found 5 dead links in the article.[1]

Fixed. Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

1. a (prose): b (MoS):

   "In July 2008, Warner Brothers announced that, because of the success of The Dark Knight, they would move Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from its original November 2008 release date to July 2009. Summit Entertainment jumped at an opportunity to move the Twilight release date from December to November 2008, which, coincidentally, added fuel to the debate between the two fandoms." Does the last part need to be in there? To fix this, you could phrase it like this: "Originally scheduled for release in December 2008, Twilight moved to a worldwide release of November 21, 2008, after a scheduling conflict of Warner Bros.' Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which caused Half-Blood Prince to move from a November 2008 release to be released in July 2009."

   Could do a few more brushing up on prose, but is mostly satisfactory besides what is noted above.

Fixed. Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Five dead links as noted above.

Fixed, as noted above. Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several references that lead to MTV.com, and while this is understandable as the site does several Twilight related news stories, it is still not (to me, anyway) a reliable source. If you can clean a few of these up it would be good.

There are also several links that redirect, like all of the ones from Premiere.com.

I fixed the Premiere links, but I'm not sure why the MTV articles are not seen as reliable in this case. Are there particular ones that you have an issue with? Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe we should ask about it then? Guy546^(Talk) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In light of User:Erik's recent talk about MTV.com on the article's talk page and there are no objections, I have seen that MTV.com is a reliable source. I will change the sources in the article to passing now, thus cementing the article as a GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

Is satisfactory besides what I noted about the mention about the fandoms.

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

While it is a well structured article, I can't give it good article status until the things I mentioned are cleaned up. Guy546^(Talk) 23:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Guy546^(Talk) 21:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)